On 1/16/14, 12:31 PM, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> I need a sanity check. Is this an oversight that needs to be corrected, or
> am I missing something?
>
> Problem:
> "svn log -g" will explicitly identify a reverse merge, however, when
> specifying xml output ("svn log -g --xml") no such identification is made.
Yup looks like an oversight. The nesting already shows that it's a merge and
what revision made the merge. But we don't show the direction of the merge.
I've coded up a trivial change to add a reverse-merge attribute on the logentry
element in this case. e.g.
<logentry revision="13" reverse-merge="true">
Once I write a test for it I'll commit it.
Given that it changes the XML output, I probably wouldn't backport this to
1.8.x.
